"Let Them Eat Cake" - WSJ Cluelessness
- From: "sundialsvc4" <gargle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Aug 2005 15:25:45 -0700
You gotta hand it to Wall Street Journal: they have gone very far in
this world by talking to their readers as though those readers were
rich, or soon will be (presumably by virtue of reading WSJ). But this
week a couple of articles really point out just how far from reality
this can be.
For example, there is just now beginning to be a grudging admittance
that, golly gee, we COULD be in a housing bubble. That, y'know, that
$300,000 condominium might not BE much more than an $800-a-month
apartment. That, y'know, there might be too-many houses and that
too-much money might have been paid for them. That, y'know, maybe
(JUST maybe) prices might FALL. WSJ's stern advice? "Take the loss
and sell-low."
Blissfully omitted: the majority of Americans, caught in that
position, CANNOT "sell low," like "rich people can," because they can't
afford to. If you borrowed $300,000 from the bank, then THAT (plus
interest) is what you will have to PAY, and if your house only sells
for $150,000 then you'd better have the rest in cash. Of course, you
don't.
Also blissfully omitted: the majority of Americans, caught in that
position with their fingers in a vise, will do the Unthinkable: they
will Default. Declare bankruptcy. Walk away. Not because they want
to, but because they have no choice. And one thing leads to another
thing and ... well, banks collapse.
---
A few days later we have this offhanded issue about the credit-crunch.
How lots of folks took out home-equity loans with adjustable
interest-rates and that those interest-rates are going up again. Fast.
In the same issue we have the equally-offhand comment about credit-card
interest rates. How, "if you are late on one payment," your
interest-rate can jump up to (get this...) THIRTY percent. The Great
Steel-Jaw Trap of the Banking Business, because ... heh heh ... who's
to say when that payment got mailed? When it got received? Whether it
sat in the mailroom for a week or if the bank is just plain lying.
(30% interest is plenty of reason to lie.)
---
It's a "Let Them Eat Cake" point-of-view. And let me explain. You
see, Marie Antoinette wasn't being /careless/ when she said that; she
was just being /clueless/ ... she literally didn't understand the idea
of not having anything to eat. "If they do not have bread, then let
them eat cake." As a child of privilege she had no concept of there
not being both bread and cake on the table, and that if the bread was
missing one simply fired the cook. Same deal here.
I believe that if you remain too wealthy for too long, it messes with
your head. Like Marie, who _lost_ hers, it disconnects you from the
very same reality upon which, ultimately, your own wealth and status
really does depend. There are plenty of leaders in this government
(not simply the Prez and the Veep...) who have lost sight of the fact
that "trade" is not an abstract number; it is people trying to make a
living. That "interest rates" paid by banks to the Fed don't matter,
while interest-rates paid by people to the banks, do. That you can't
go on accepting shiploads of goods from other nations and sending their
ships back to them loaded with ballast ("rocks"). That true wealth is
not made, nor is it sustained, by stealing from your neighbors. Or
your countrymen.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: A Question of Time
- Next by Date: Re: A Question of Time
- Previous by thread: A Question of Time
- Next by thread: Why We Must Send Our Rough-necks to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
